incontrovertible 13 Posted December 29, 2011 Heya's Seeing as my rig (a C2D Quad) will be invalidated with the launch of ArmA 3 I'm thinking ahead of what to get CPU-wise when the time comes. I think we all know that Ivy-Bridge will be a solid choice but I'll admit to being interested in the potential of AMD's FX range. I realise that at the moment FX does not stack up too well. I'm curious however to hear if with proper drivers and a CPU heavy game like ArmA 3 will FX get more comparable to Intel's offerings? Thanks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gera_CCT 12 Posted December 31, 2011 AMD-FX will rock on next generation when they fix some things. I don´t belive some drivers and windows fixes will solve, but the arquiteture has a LOT of potencial in the future. So i too have a C2 Quad (Q6600) and will go for ivy in 2012. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vuckotadic 10 Posted January 1, 2012 When is Ivy Bridge going to be released? I want to upgrade from my Phenom II, its bottlenecking my GTX 570. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
madmusti 10 Posted January 1, 2012 i have a i7 950 & 470 gtx and i want to change to 7970 ! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
palanoid 0 Posted January 1, 2012 ive been reading stories about an april release for ivy bridge,along with those new intel chipsets. geraldus is right, piledriver could be an eye-opener,who knows lol. over at bit-tech.net they did an arma2 benchmark on bulldozer,maybe u can use it as a precursor of the kind of performance to be expected in arma3,although nothing is certain. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
carlostex 38 Posted January 1, 2012 latest news is April 8 for Ivy Bridge. I myself will wait for Haswell. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
metalcraze 290 Posted January 1, 2012 AMD FX? Throw out that piece of trash. You can get sandy bridge i5 or i7 with unlocked multiplier (2500K and 2600K respectively) and you will be set. They will get even cheaper when ivy bridge is out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
carlostex 38 Posted January 1, 2012 AMD FX? Throw out that piece of trash. New year, same trolling.:rolleyes: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
metalcraze 290 Posted January 1, 2012 If you think that a 2011 CPU that is slower than 2008 CPUs from the same company but costs more is not a piece of junk - then yes I'm a troll. AMD FX isn't going to get magically better, there are no "errors" to fix. It isn't some crappy videocard driver which you just code better. It's a battle of architectures on a ~30 nm battlefield that AMD fails all the time for past years. As much as I liked AMD in the past when they still could make a good CPU, beating Intel - this year I'll be switching to Intel because for AMD this isn't going anywhere, which they themselves very much admitted. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
carlostex 38 Posted January 1, 2012 The CPU is slower than Phenom II in certain workloads and much faster on others. It was a compromise. Architectural decisions. They (AMD) are not competing for x86 performance crown anymore. Not saying this to advocate AMD, it is just what it is. The architecture will be fine tuned however, even though they know and we know that they won't get the performance crown anyway. As far as i see it, the architecture is failing to hit higher clockspeeds as we speak, just like what happened with Agena (Phenom I). This doesn't make FX == junk or FX == thrash. And yes i believe that (metalcraze == troll) returns true. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
metalcraze 290 Posted January 2, 2012 Excuse me? A compromise for what? And why Intel doesn't make any compromises with each new CPU being 20-30% faster in everything than the previous one? Because I can say just as easily than Phenom II is slower at something and faster at something compared to FX. With ArmA3 compromises won't cut it. Raw power will. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
carlostex 38 Posted January 2, 2012 Excuse me? A compromise for what? And why Intel doesn't make any compromises with each new CPU being 20-30% faster in everything than the previous one?Because I can say just as easily than Phenom II is slower at something and faster at something compared to FX. With ArmA3 compromises won't cut it. Raw power will. :rolleyes: Because Intel invests more in R&D than AMD can profit. It is a simple metric. Plus you don't seem to understand why FX is Slower than Phenom II. And it is pretty easy to when you compare the 2 architectures. The frontend, branch and decode are shared among 2 Integer Cores with a single 256 bit FPU that can execute 2 128bit instructions. Each integer core has 2 L/S units and 2 ALU's. It is not difficult to see that they're not gonna get high IPC. With 17 pipeline stages and bigger caches their latencies are a lot higher, so like i said they need to crank up the clock speed to compensate. Now explain me how are you expecting high performance on a very different architecture like this where the software hasn't really been optimized for it as well as OS schedulers. What about instructions? Are software developers out there rushing to optimize for XOP/FMA4? I didn't say that FX is going to be the best CPU for Arma 3, but you indeed said that FX is junk. If you're so interested in raw power go buy Itanium. That raw power won't do you any good. I have nothing against you but what what you stated here is called spreading FUD, BS and ignorance which can all be summarized into trolling. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
metalcraze 290 Posted January 2, 2012 So FX isn't junk it's just misunderstood by people who expected AMD to release a CPU that at least isn't slower than 3 years old predecessor? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
carlostex 38 Posted January 2, 2012 The design has issues, compromises and needs to mature as architecturally it is different from what we have now. But AMD is not going to promise you to release a faster proccesor than Intel. When AMD announced SSE5 specification, Intel rejected it, not because it was bad, but because they would need to change their architectures. AMD would be left with an advantage. So they announced AVX instead which is little more than wider 256 bit SSE. Intel dictates the rules, the market follows. The reason why AMD got ahead with Athlon 64 was not only because it was the uber CPU, but mainly because Intel made a mistake with Netburst architecture. Like that wasn't enough they couldn't convince the market to adopt EPIC VLIW to replace CISC x86 or RISC emulated x86. So they pretty much had to copy AMD64. But that was an exception. Get over it. FX is as much junk as it is the best CPU out there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
metalcraze 290 Posted January 2, 2012 Intel dictates nothing. AMD failed to release a CPU faster than their own 3 years old CPU. End of story. AMD can't even compete with itself, who cares about Intel here? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
carlostex 38 Posted January 2, 2012 Intel dictates nothing.AMD failed to release a CPU faster than their own 3 years old CPU. End of story. AMD can't even compete with itself, who cares about Intel here? You keep babbling the same BS over and over again without presenting any valid arguments that backup your claims. It is evident that most software cannot schedule the threads properly to the CPU and it apparently does have slightly lower IPC than Phenom II. That happens when you approach a CPU architecture rather differently. It will take time until we see performance benefits from the CMT approach. FYI hyper threading should be disabled when gaming because most of them out there won't take advantage of it right now. But they might in the future. They (AMD) have indeed a lot to work on this micro-architecture. Even now however these chips are far from thrash. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
batto 17 Posted January 2, 2012 AMD can't even compete with itself My friend don't think so. Of course it's probably not suitable for hi-end gaming rig. (Sorry for offtopic.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
frostwyrm333 1 Posted January 2, 2012 @metalcraze There actually IS stuff to fix, and guess what, windows. Releasing aged product to unprepared platform. AMD+Microsoft is a deadly combo. http://assets.vr-zone.net/14256/suboptimal.jpg MS accidentally released one patch but pulled it down, there is supposed to be a real one sometimes later. So there is some untapped performance. It really is sad how the situation developed, people like to think that AMD is worthless PoS, but without serious competitor, the market will stagnate(or at least prices won't go down), you have more choice in GPU's than CPU's, bulldozer release incredibly sucks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
carlostex 38 Posted January 3, 2012 So there is some untapped performance. It really is sad how the situation developed, people like to think that AMD is worthless PoS, but without serious competitor, the market will stagnate(or at least prices won't go down), you have more choice in GPU's than CPU's, bulldozer release incredibly sucks. The way you put it, it really sucks for desktop users totally agree. And even Windows 7 scheduler patch won't help much, i mean it won't greatly boost performance, but it just proves how different the architecture is and how software is just not ready for it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pyronick 21 Posted January 3, 2012 Intel dictates nothing.AMD failed to release a CPU faster than their own 3 years old CPU. End of story. AMD can't even compete with itself, who cares about Intel here? It's actually faster. But most software (pretty much all used software) is compiled for Intel arch and SIMD which now is very much like AMD64.The funny thing is that AMD went for a radical design change which actually IS a lot faster. Only the software and operating systems (Windows) we use it on is more it like written for 1999 hardware. Multithreading software for instance is still using symmetrical threads. It still is a first step to heterogeneous computing, the next iterations will decide AMD's fate. If AMD keeps doing good business with their GPU branch it could just one day take the performance crown in the CPU market. They already have Intel Atom by the balls, Intel Xeon in their pocket - just the gaming industry is very Intel Insidey. If anything I wouldn't be surprised if Intel will get beat by ARM on gaming in a few years. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
overvolts 0 Posted January 5, 2012 Here we go again, another FX is such a horrible processor thread thats always brought up in online forums. All owners of AMD FX processors get a good laugh at all the the benchmark claims on all these supposed reputable sites. First of all I can tell you that FX being slower in gaming than a Phenom II is dead wrong. Second all these sites showing SLI gaming benchmarks with an overclocked 4.6Ghz FX-8150 compared to my stock 3.6Ghz with dual GTX 580's compared to my older GTX 480's in Arma II benchmarks get smoked by my system with same settings. One site in particular showing 33 FPS at 3k view distance mine was averaging 42 FPS and at 500 view distance claimed 39 fps when is was getting 65 fps actual. Funny thing is I'm using slower 1600Mhz RAM than the stock 1866Mhz supported RAM. Currently Microsoft is working with AMD to fix the thread scheduler to handle the modules and to get turbo core working and even had one of the two leaked beta FX patches, they pulled less than 24 hours later, that users where getting up to a 20% performance gain in certain newer games. Here is my guess that may or may not become accurate but I predict once the Windows hotfixes come out and game developers code newer games with FX architexture in mind may cause the FX-8150 performance to be on par with an I7 2700K. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
carlostex 38 Posted January 5, 2012 @overvoltage Nothing like a real FX user to set things straight. The architecture will for sure be fine tuned, and with Steamroller iteration by end of 2013, i think they'll up the execution resources including AGU pipes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SaLaDiN 10 Posted January 6, 2012 They already have Intel Atom by the balls, Intel Xeon in their pocket - just the gaming industry is very Intel Insidey.If anything I wouldn't be surprised if Intel will get beat by ARM on gaming in a few years. Not sure if trolling or stupid.. http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2011/11/bulldozer-server-benchmarks-are-here-and-theyre-a-catastrophe.ars ---------- Post added at 12:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:01 AM ---------- But AMD is not going to promise you to release a faster proccesor than Intel. Really? http://imageshack.us/f/833/marketingbsbyamd.jpg/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pyronick 21 Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) Not sure if trolling or stupid..http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2011/11/bulldozer-server-benchmarks-are-here-and-theyre-a-catastrophe.ars I'm not talking about performance, I'm talking about market share. Edited January 8, 2012 by SgtH3nry3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TimRiceSE 10 Posted January 8, 2012 I'm not talking about performance, I'm talking about market share. ?? Are we talking about market share on the server side of things? 2010 Intel had a 92% market share.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
